this sad image of a clearly very imature young man looking forlorn in his isolation speaks volumes, as he tries to take on a role of being of some consequence in life – a role that went as horribly wrong for this foolish young American lad Dylann Roof as did the actions of Anders Brevick in Norway, both out of step with the realities of the modern world and the principles of progress!

Clearly a sad and lonely misfit, trying to look grown up!

I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.

Blacks

I think it is is fitting to start off with the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans. Niggers are stupid and violent. At the same time they have the capacity to be very slick. Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race. The other reason is the Jewish agitation of the black race. Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to. Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men. This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them. Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact superior. I wish with a passion that niggers were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons. Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation. Segregation was not a bad thing. It was a defensive measure. Segregation did not exist to hold back negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from being brought down to their level. Integration has done nothing but bring Whites down to level of brute animals. The best example of this is obviously our school system. Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities. But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among negroes? No one, but someone has to.

Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest? To me the whole idea just parralells the concept of White people running to the suburbs. The whole idea is pathetic and just another way to run from the problem without facing it. Some people feel as though the South is beyond saving, that we have too many blacks here. To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. Speaking of South Africa, if anyone thinks that think will eventually just change for the better, consider how in South Africa they have affirmative action for the black population that makes up 80 percent of the population. It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely. But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.

Anyone who thinks that White and black people look as different as we do on the outside, but are somehow magically the same on the inside, is delusional. How could our faces, skin, hair, and body structure all be different, but our brains be exactly the same? This is the nonsense we are led to believe. Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races? A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same. In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.

On another subject I want to say this. Many White people feel as though they dont have a unique culture. The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though our culture isnt special or unique. Say for example that every business man in the world wore a kimono, that every skyscraper was in the shape of a pagoda, that every door was a sliding one, and that everyone ate every meal with chopsticks. This would probably make a Japanese man feel as though he had no unique traditional culture.

I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalists community, bordering on insanity it. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.

Jews

Unlike many White naitonalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are White. In my opinion the issues with jews is not their blood, but their identity. I think that if we could somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldnt cause much of a problem. The problem is that Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like niggers, most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish. The other issue is that they network. If we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on.

I dont pretend to understand why jews do what they do. They are enigma.

Hispanics

Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more White than our own. They have respect for White beauty, and a good portion of hispanics are White. It is a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanics countries. There is good White blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil.

But they are still our enemies.East Asians

I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races.Patriotism

I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.An Explanation

To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I dont see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.”. To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”.

I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Unfortunately at the time of writing I am in a great hurry and some of my best thoughts, actually many of them have been to be left out and lost forever. But I believe enough great White minds are out there already.

Please forgive any typos, I didnt have time to check it.

This childish, ill informed, racist rant was NOT posted by a Ukip executive but by the cowardly, imature & inadequate Charlston S.C. church congregation murderer. A Racist Manifesto To Challenge Gerard Batten & His Ukip Pamphlets this was posted originally by Dylann Storm Roof on his web site CLICK HERE

As reported by the BBC, a cross-party group of seven MPs have formed an “Exploratory Committee” for the EU Referendum. They comprise Steve Baker, Douglas Carswell, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Bernard Jenkin, Owen Paterson, and Graham Stringer.The MPs are listed in alphabetical order and media enquiries are being directed to Kate Hoey, (Chair, Labour for Britain) and Steve Baker (Chair of Conservatives for Britain). However, as senior MP for the committee, Owen Paterson is chairing meetings and is coordinating much of the day-to-day activity.

A report in The Times suggests that Dominic Cummings, former adviser to the Michael Gove, has been recruited to oversee the committee. However, at this stage, the committee has no formal secretariat. It would be quite wrong to suggest that Cummings is in charge. His precise role (if he chooses to accept one) has yet to be defined.

The task of the committee is urgently to seek “to provide resources for crucial thinking and to promote cooperation amongst those who might contribute to a ‘no’ campaign”. In other words, it is exactly as described on the tin. It is exploring the terrain. It is not the “no” campaign, and is not taking an active campaigning role.

Underpinning the committee is a belief that, without fundamental change in our relationship with the EU, it is the best interests of the UK, Europe, the wider world, and the cause of peaceful international cooperation, to the UK to leave the EU and pursuing a different relationship with our EU partners.

However, the committee notes that “there is little if any indication that the government is even asking for significant reform or fundamental change”. In anticipation of there being no significant (or any) movement in the June European Council, therefore, the committee is taking certain preparatory steps.

It is conscious that both sides of the referendum campaign will require the creation of substantial organisations to provide voters with a real choice. And in this context, it will be looking at the legal issues arising from the Referendum Bill (eg. rules for “purdah”, the impartiality of EU and government institutions and broadcasters, funding limits, designation of “yes” and “no” campaigns, etc).

Specifically, the committee is also looking as how an “no” campaign might best be formed, and how it might be run to inform the public about the issues.

It has been stressed that there is no intention to impose a “top down” structure on the campaign or appoint a grand supremo over the heads of campaigners. This is a genuine attempt to resolve the many complex issues involved in setting up and effective campaign.

Our Referendum Planning Group (RPG) has been kept fully informed of developments, and we are in touch with key players. Our own group will be meeting in London on 30 June and we would welcome contacts from other interested groups.

Alongside the Bruges Group and other component groups, we anticipate that the long-standing Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) will play a significant role in recruiting and marshalling “grass roots” activists. We encourage potential activists to contact the CIB or to watch this blog for further announcements – not least for details of a number of “recruitment fairs”, where we will be seeking activists to fill specific positions.

Another thing we have in mind is a series of stand-alone functional “cells” to take over specific tasks, such as the social media “rebuttal group” that is in the process of formation. There will also be a number of covert groups, tasked with some other serious activities. We are encouraged that, within the Exploratory Committee, there is recognition of the need for a comprehensive, and common, exit plan – and the urgency behind the task of producing one is understood. All and any support in this respect that the Committee needs will be made available to it by the RPG.

With it firmly established that this campaign is about free people cooperating freely in a common cause, we see this emergence of the Exploratory Committee (EC!) as a healthy and important step in the development of a formal “no” campaign. There has been much progress in the weeks since the election, and I am confident that we are beginning to work in the right lines.

a reassuring step that would seem to be very much in the right decision to ensure that ‘democracy’ will stand a chance against the likely spread of FUD and efforts of the British Government, the EU and the parochial values of the SNP will be both exposed and countered.

One is forced to the realisation that this referendum, when it occurs, will be largely invalid in democratic terms as FUD and intervention together with interference and public money will be used to distort the democratic process – with liberal spin on the non event Cameron achievements, thus negating any value in a YES vote to remain in the EU and the fractured nature of our society will continue.

Thus this is little more than a dress rehearsal for the battle to come when as a result of the apparent popularity of a YES vote leads, naturally, to a rapid treaty change and central imposition of a new treaty by the EU – This will then provide the referendum of consequence prior to the binding lock in of the new treaty – a referendum promised by Government should there ever be a new treaty and or further loss of democratic powers.

As with any dress reheartsal this must be used to show there is a will to continue the battle for repatriation of our sovereignty. restoration of our borders, reinstatement of our place at the table internationally in our own right and reconstruction of our Civil Service as a British administrative and negotiating force rather than the milk sops of the EU over weening unelected bureacracy, which to a large extent controls the EU.

The other great benefit of a dress rehearsal will be the opportunity to learn those who are truely campaigners for Britain with a view to learning from the mistakes of the NO campaign versus the distortions of the process by the YES campaigners – sadly however there is no guarantee that the NO campaign will learn as largely they seem not to have learned from the debacle of the 1975 referendum that has provided the last 40 years of damaging vassal status and loss of our Civil Service and Government in terms of skills of drafting and negotiation on the world stage.

Many of the same mistakes are being made now by those claiming to aspire to a NO vote as were made in 1975.

We must use this referendum to put the NO campaign in as strong a position as we can, though I have little doubt we will lose in this round, we must learn to ensure we win in the second and dec isive referendum regarding a new treaty and further loss of powers and democratic control, that will inevitably come fairly rapidly (approx. 3>4 years after this referendum).

The broader the spread of the campaign and the more focused the aims the better and it is not a leader we need as it will be the intellectual argument that will win, in a largely economically neutral debate of the values of independence of mind and values on the world stage in a largely globalised world where such individuality will prove essential – unless of course one wishes to live in an over bureaucratised bland uninovational ant colony manner on our planet.

Even in the EU the true spirit of these United Kingdoms stands out, as does or versatility and ability to recover from set back in a mannert that is an example to the rest of EUrope if not the world – such that be they the boat people of Viet Nam or their current equivalent amongst the flotilla of ships adrift in the Med. on route from Africa, Syria, Iraq and the like where such an overwhellming percentage wish to head North to the Channel Ports to seek passage, however dangerous, to get into Britain.

A largely unwanted compliment but a compliment no less, showing that although there are those who for their narrow aims and faltering confidence may value vassal status in the EU many around the world see Britain as a very separate entity, hence the level and diversity of those seeking assylum, for whatever reason, on these islands – different as we are.

Thus I see Richard’s introduction of both the EC and the RPG as not just a small step for the NO Campaign but a giant leap forward for the future as Britain moves inexorably to BreXit via FleXcit!

Guest Post > Guido Fawkes also Andrew Watts:
Global Wind Day Power Failure for the warmists & Further Facts From WUWT etc.

.
Hi,

as I am actively opposing the industrialisation of the Severn Estuary CLICK HERE * with the unsustainable and underhand imposition of a series of giant wind turbines in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that will not only fail to produce the power output claimed for the period claimed, based on recognised data but together with harming wildlife in this instance is likely to make the most dangerouys road in EUrope even more dangerous with yet more fatalities – I found these two postings below of particular interest:

* CLICK HERE – An excercise others may wish to take note of, if they wish to oppose the imposition of wind turbines and the creeping industrialisation of Rural Britain – with no view unsullied by these monstrous intrusuve & largely useless structures.

Yesterday was Global Wind Day, a worldwide event organised by the European Wind Energy Association and the Global Wind Energy Council to help the public discover “wind, its power and the possibilities it holds to reshape our energy systems, decarbonise our economies and boost jobs and growth“.

To celebrate, Gaia has collated the UK Wind energy output for yesterday and plotted it against the total potential wind capacity:

It is worth noting from Andrew Watt’s site ‘Watts Up With That’ that yet another scientific analysis and report has produced clear evidence, yet again, that Global Warming & Climate Change are clearly NOT a man made phenomenon!

Medieval Warm Period confirmed via cave study of 3000 years of climatic variations

SYDNEY — University of New South Wales Australia-led research on limestone formations in a remote Scottish cave has produced a unique 3000-year-long record of climatic variations that may have influenced historical events including the fall of the Roman Empire and the Viking Age of expansion.

The study of five stalagmites in Roaring Cave north of Ullapool in north-west Scotland is the first to use a compilation of cave measurements to track changes in a climate phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation.

‘Our results also provide the longest annual record of this important phenomenon, which has a big impact on the climate in Europe,’ says study leader, UNSW Professor Andy Baker.

‘It confirms that the during the Medieval Warm Period between 1080 and 1430 the oscillation index was in an unusually prolonged positive phase, which brings increased rain to Scotland and drier conditions in the western Mediterranean,’ says Baker, of the UNSW Connected Waters Initiative Research Centre.

‘Our results also reveal there was another persistent positive phase between 290 and 550, which coincides with the decline of Rome and a period of intensified human migration in southern Europe during the Dark Ages.

‘This was followed by a persistent negative phase between 600 and 900 which may have provided warm and dry conditions in northwestern Europe that made it suitable for westward expansion by the Vikings, although the precise timing of this event is contested.’

The study is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The North Atlantic Oscillation climate index measures the air pressure difference between Iceland and the Azores islands off the Portuguese coast, and is a record of the strength of the westerly winds in the North Atlantic.

Roaring Cave, or Uamh an Tartair, in northwest Scotland, is a shallow cave beneath a blanket of peat that has accumulated during the past 4000 years.

Rainfall levels in this region closely correspond with the strength of the oscillation index in winter, with higher precipitation when it is positive. And the upward rate of growth of stalagmites in the cave is very sensitive to rainfall — the more water in the peat, the more slowly the stalagmites grow.

‘We painstakingly measured the thickness of each annual growth ring in five stalagmites taken from the cave, including one that provides a continuous annual record spanning more than 1800 years,’ says Baker.

By overlapping the five stalagmites they obtained a proxy record of the climate at the cave during a 3000-year period from about 1000 BC to 2000 AD.

‘Our research provides a climate context for some of the big human migration events in Europe and allows us to start building hypotheses about the impact of environment on societal change,’ says Baker.

The team includes researcher from UNSW, the University of Lausanne in Switzerland and the University of Arizona in the U.S.

Annually laminated stalagmites can be used to construct a precise chronology, and variations in laminae thickness provide an annual growth-rate record that can be used as a proxy for past climate and environmental change. Here, we present and analyse the first composite speleothem annual growth-rate record based on five stalagmites from the same cave system in northwest Scotland, where precipitation is sensitive to North Atlantic climate variability and the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Our 3000-year record confirms persistently low growth-rates, reflective of positive NAO states, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA). Another persistently low growth period occurring at 290-550 CE coincides with the European Migration Period, and a subsequent period of sustained fast growth-rate (negative NAO) from 600-900 AD provides the climate context for the Viking Age in northern and western Europe.

here is a GP (Guest Post) which I found interesting and all too prescient when you read the penultimate paragraph which with a simple change of names shows just why the NO to remaining as a Vassal Region in the EU vote will lose this time just as it did in 1975!

Apart from constantly warning people I can think of absoluteley nothing more I can do to help Britain and the British peoples gain a NO Vote on the upcoming Referendum vote promised by the end of 2017.

IF you have any ideas I’d love to hear them as I can not think of a single reason of substance, not founded on lies and exageration, for staying in this idiotic and deeply dangerous social experiment but I can think of endless reasons for us to Leave_The_EU.

The YES vote is likely to be dishonestly funded from the public purse and Government is likely to abuse its position of trust as our servants using their time, their status and the Civil Service to gain a YES vote, the BBC will be used as a propaganda broadcaster for the YES campaign in flagrant disregard of their Royal Charter which demands political impartiality! and on past record we can be assured that the malign EU will pour huge resources and public money into gaining a YES vote as it is widely believed amongst the informed that should Britain Leave_The_EU it is likely that the entire EU project will start to come unravelled!

There will also be those who dishonestly betray these United Kingdoms by voting in the House of Lords, like Neil Kinnock, who draw EU salaries or pensions which bear with them an ubndertaking to uphold & promote the EU, yet they fail to have the integrity to prorogue themselves when it comes to debate & voting in Britain!

The entire system would seem to bear many resemblances to the management of FIFA under Sepp Blatter!

Sadly the Government and the EU can be expected to lie to gain their wishes over the democratic process and businessmen, mainly of the EU linked companies (PLCs) will be used to trump up fear amongst the electorate based on ptopaganda rather than facts.

This together with the egos of a number of self important inadequates, thinking of themselves rather than our country, our peoples and our future will see the NO campaign in endless squabbles, without coherent strategy, tactics or vision.

Rather than show leadership for the common good and for the future we will see people of no leadership merit jockeying for position and making claims for inclusivity being put before the common sense need for vision, a clear strategy and tactics with a clear, detailed plan as to how to withdraw from the EU ethically, responsibly and with a clear plan presenting a short and long term process to ensure the survival of Britain.

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) will be the kin gpin of a misleading and dishonest YES campaign aiming to enforce our vassal status in the supra National Empirate of The EU – FUD led by the dinoaurs of politics from the last century like Michael Hesseltine, Ken Clarke and their puppet proteges!

A measure of the EU is the endless travel between the old Nation States as represented by the MEPs (sales reps) of the new vassal regions & the rubber stamping unit in Brussels with monthy relocation to Strasburgh – a system almost totally bereft of democracy managed and controlled by unelected bureaucrats with a meeting chamber designed for the sales staff to make video clips to promote the entire scam – a meeting chamber which fails to provide meaningful debate where block voting is the norm – who in the 21st. Century with fuel and travel costs and the increasing convenience of video conferencing would use the costly arcane practices of the EU!

40 Years On: The 1975 Referendum Rememberedby Robert Saunders

on June 05, 2015 By Robert Saunders

Forty years ago today, voters went to the polls in Britain’s first ever national referendum. Their votes would determine the most important political question of the time: whether Britain should remain a member of the European Community. For the first time in British history, a major political question would be settled directly by the people, and their decision would transform British politics for a generation.Britain had joined the European Community just two years earlier, under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. For all his grim exterior, Heath was a man of radical political ambitions. He had come to power in 1970 promising to ‘change the course of history in this country'; and joining the European Community was central to that aspiration. Yet his achievement was always precarious. In a rare moment of rhetorical excess, Heath had promised that Britain would only enter the Community with the ‘full-hearted consent of Parliament and People’. Parliament had voted narrowly in favour, but the people were not directly consulted. Europe had not been an issue at the general election, and the Conservative manifesto had promised simply ‘to negotiate – no more, no less’. When a Labour government was elected in 1974, it was itself desperately divided on Europe. The new Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, promised to renegotiate the terms of membership and put them to the public in a referendum – exactly the offer that David Cameron would repeat in 2015.The decision to hold a referendum was highly controversial. Margaret Thatcher, newly elected as leader of the Conservative Party, called it ‘a device of dictators and demagogues’. The Sun thought it a ‘constitutional monstrosity': a ‘rotten’, ‘silly’, ‘alien’ and ‘unconstitutional’ device. For Tony Benn, by contrast, the referendum offered a new vision of popular democracy. In the modern world, he argued, ‘the five-yearly cross on the ballot paper is not enough’. Regular plebiscites would make government truly accountable to the electors, enlarging both ‘the responsibility and understanding of ordinary people’.Over the six months of the campaign, the referendum took what had been a fairly closed debate, centring on Whitehall, Westminster and the Foreign Office, and threw it open to the country. The debate that followed took root in the most unlikely places. Businesses campaigned openly for British membership, producing letters and magazines advising their workers how to vote. Bishops preached sermons on European integration, and a quarter of churches held services or days of prayer. In Northern Ireland, experiencing one of the bloodiest years of the Troubles, paramilitary newspapers carried earnest editorials on the economics of European integration. The Women’s Institutes, the Townswomen’s Guilds and the Rotary Club all hosted meetings and discussion groups, while campaign literature was translated into Welsh, Arabic and many other languages. The BBC screened a live debate from the Oxford Union, lasting two and a half hours on a Saturday night. 9 million people tuned in to watch.Then as now, the European question fired a missile through the established party system. For the ‘Yes’ campaign – fighting to keep Britain in Europe – Harold Wilson lined up alongside Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, Roy Jenkins and Jeremy Thorpe. The ‘No’ campaign saw Tony Benn fighting alongside Enoch Powell, backed by the unlikely alliance of Ian Paisley, the National Front and the Communist Party of Great Britain. In the constituencies, party activists worked alongside lifelong political enemies, in a festive atmosphere that was widely likened to the Christmas Truce.This disorganisation of party opened the way for a much wider range of political actors. Local campaign groups mushroomed, with names like ‘Orpington in Europe’ or ‘The West Country Anti-Common Market League’. Voluntary organisations, local businesses and the churches all played a leading role, while the faces that looked down from campaign posters were not those of politicians but of actors, sports stars and celebrities. Henry Cooper, Colin Cowdrey, Don Revie and Jock Stein all backed the ‘Yes’ campaign. The star recruit for the ‘Antis’ was George Best, memorably described as ‘the Enoch Powell of the football field’.The result was a landslide for the pro-Europeans. On a 65% turnout, more than two-thirds of voters backed British membership. Every part of the UK voted to stay in, except for the Shetlands and the Western Isles. It was the most full-throated endorsement of the European project the British have ever given. A jubilant editorial in the Daily Express proclaimed that Britain was now ‘decisively’ and ‘irrevocably’ European. ‘The most doubting and hesitant member of the Common Market’ had finally ‘shown that it means business’.By any measure, the Eurosceptic campaign had been horrifically outgunned. The pro-Europeans could call on all three main party leaders, almost all the most prominent politicians of the day, and all the great organs of civil society – the churches, the CBI, the National Farmers Union and the leading women’s organisations. The pro-European umbrella group, ‘Britain in Europe’, raised £2 million in donations – roughly the entire spend of the previous general election. The ‘No’ campaign raised just £8,000. All the major newspapers backed a Yes vote, including The Sun, The Express and The Daily Mail. The only journals that consistently backed withdrawal were The Spectator and the Communist Morning Star.To make matters worse, the No campaign was hopelessly divided. Tony Benn refused to appear with Enoch Powell. The leader of the Get Britain Out organisation, Christopher Frere-Smith, was at daggers drawn with the chairman of the national umbrella group, Neil Marten. In a campaign where moderate opinion would be decisive, it was not especially helpful that the National Front, Sinn Fein, the Reverend Ian Paisley and the Kremlin were all urging a No vote – and determined to extract as much publicity from the campaign as possible.Much has changed since the votes were announced. In 1975, it was the Conservative Party that was most enthusiastically pro-European. Ted Heath stumped the country, displaying a passion and charisma that had been entirely lacking during his premiership. Margaret Thatcher campaigned vigorously for the European cause, resplendent in a woolly jumper knitted from the flags of the European member states. Labour was predominantly Eurosceptic, while the trade union movement provided the backbone of the campaign to get Britain out.

IN MEMORIAM

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda

nee: Roberts

Born:13-Oct-1925 – Died 08-Apr-2013

Aged 87

Thatcher hailed for changing political landscape of the world

World leaders remember Margaret Thatcher

as woman of indisputable resolve & patriotism

Mon, Apr 8 2013

An Admirer of Maggie Thatcher
Places a floral tribute at Baroness Thatcher’sLoved or loathed in death as in life, Margaret Thatcher left no one indifferent, finding some of her most ardent admirers among her political opponents.

“Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader,” said the odious and self serving Tony Blair, the centre-left Labour leader who brought his own party back to power not least by heeding the lessons of “Thatcherism“.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader whom she famously declared she could “do business with”, said their mutual understanding “contributed to a change in the atmosphere between our country and the West and to the end of the Cold War“.

Thatcher’s warm relations with Gorbachev’s direct adversary, U.S. president Ronald Reagan, and their shared espousal of the free market and individual liberty, along with her readiness to provide a base for U.S. nuclear missiles, gave Britain greater influence in Washington than it has normally enjoyed.

“The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend,” said U.S. President Barack Obama.

“Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history – we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will.“

Pope Francis recalled, with appreciation, “the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and to the promotion of freedom among the family of nations“.

At home, Conservatives mourned the leader who set a free-market agenda in Britain and Europe and famously announced “there is no such thing as society” as she put individual enterprise and self-reliance before the state and the social safety net.

David Cameron, the prime minister who led the Conservatives back to power but without the absolute majority Thatcher enjoyed throughout her premiership, said: “We’ve lost a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton.

“As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country. And I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.“

THATCHER AND THE EU

Thatcher is remembered in Britain for resisting the idea that the European Union should move ever closer to political union, but, at a time when Britain is once again agonising over its role in Europe, EU leaders much keener on closer integration had warm words for her.

The unelected European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said “she would be remembered both for her contributions and her reserves to our common project“:

“She signed the Single European Act and she helped bring about the single market. She was a leading player also in bringing into the European family the central and eastern European countries which were formerly behind the Iron Curtain.“

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a fellow conservative who grew up in communist East Germany and went on like Thatcher to become the first woman to head her country’s government, said:

“The freedom of the individual was at the core of her convictions; in that sense Margaret Thatcher recognised the strength of the movements for freedom of eastern Europe early on and stood up for them.

“Margaret Thatcher was not a women’s politician – but by asserting herself as a woman in the highest democratic office at a time when this was not yet a given, she was an example to many.“

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thatcher was “a pragmatic, tough and consistent person” and that these qualities had enabled her to help pull Britain out of economic crisis, for which people should be grateful despite the criticism she faced.

Putin, who once called the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century“, said Russia “will always be thankful” for the contribution Thatcher made to British-Soviet and British-Russian ties.

It was left to Vaclav Klaus, former Czech prime minister and president and a self-proclaimed “Thatcherite”, to set her vision against Europe’s current crisis. He said the European Union’s ailing economic and social model was “exactly what she, as the first woman in the post of British prime minister, fought against since the end of the 1970s“.

“Her voice is also missing in today’s discussion on European integration,” Klaus added. “Many of us will never forget her famous speech in Bruges, where she clearly said that the suppression of nation states and concentration of power in Brussels will destroy Europe.“

LINGERING RESENTMENT

But there were plenty of voices in Britain ready to express the resentment that still lingers against a woman who broke the power and self serving scams of the trade unions, ran down or privatised many subsidised and heavily loss making state-run utilities and institutions and eroded the excesses of post-war welfare state.

Margaret thatcher halted the downward slide of Britain into a quasi Communist and anarchic control by Union blackmail & Labour’s economic illiteracy and missrule. Sadly it was largely little more than a delay as so often happens a stron leader can break a party by failure to consider the future leaving weak and incompetent leadership and structures behind them.

Betrayed by the personal ambitions of low grade rivals incompetent to take on the leadership role like Hesseltine, Major and the like we suffered the open door for 13 unlucky years of dishonest, corrupt, economic incompetent self serving New Labour ambitions and lies, war crimes and betrayal.

Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

By Sir Harold Evans

Sir Harold Evans is editor-at-large at Reuters. He was the editor of The Sunday Times for fourteen years, and is the author of two best-selling American histories, as well as two memoirs about his experience in the media business.

My immediate and lasting memory of Mrs. Thatcher — Maggie as we called her — is sitting next to her in the late sixties at a dinner table as she scorched a bunch of City of London financial types. I was astonished. She wasn’t yet the Iron Lady. She wasn’t in government. Labour was in power. She was an obscure back bench Conservative MP, elected only in 1959, noticed in those sexist days (has much changed?) as much for her hats and aggressive hair style as for her passionate defence of grammar schools under threat of closure from Labour.

What she did with the City of London men was later characterised as a “hand-bagging.” A black Asprey bag she always carried was metaphorically wielded against people she saw as standing in the way of the greatness of Britain as Boudica, the leader of a British tribe, wielded a lance against the Roman occupiers. I suppose that as a new national editor (of The Sunday Times), and with normal male presumption , I had expected to lead the questioning of the ten or so big names and the table. I didn’t stand a chance. Maggie pounded and pummeled them all by herself for an hour. I can’t pretend this is verbatim but it went something like this: “All you people are interested in is moving paper around, making money not things. What are you doing for British industry? When are you going to help business stand up to the unions?” They murmured, they shuffled, they were outclassed. British elections — six weeks to a vote and no paid television ads — have never been as corrupted by money as much as American, so she was not turning off a potential source of funding as an American candidate would fear to do. Still these were men — all men of course — who were influential and articulate and used to reverence not rebuke.

Maggie could be seductive in private conversation one on one, more so as she matured, the strident voice of the public halls giving way to a softer, more seductive style, hand on an arm, intent eye to eye in persuasion. She was afraid of nobody, respecter of no convention she considered archaic. The British custom at dinner parties was always for the host to murmur “coffee?” which was signal for “the ladies” to leave for the powder room while the men, over cigars and port, got down to serious business. It was a small sensation — regarded in some circles as a grave breach of etiquette — when at a dinner party I attended thrown by her egregious confidante Woodrow Wyatt, Maggie stayed in her seat unabashed, uninvited, and unfazed by the arguments over the cigars (in this case by a couple of captains of industry who wanted to be part of Europe and she defiantly raised the Union Jack).

The trade unions at the time were busy wreaking havoc on industry. The far left had infiltrated Labour constituencies; Labour candidates were as scared of the militants then as primary Republicans of the Tea Party candidates today. Local union chiefs called wildcat strikes, disrupted production. The union movement, with some Labour ministers in support, threatened a closed shop in the press which would have curtailed free speech. I’d spoken out against it as had the then editor of The Guardian, Alastair Hetherington. At another of those endless London dinners where Maggie was the speaker and still not in government, she referred to me as “one of us.” I wasn’t. I was just expressing a view on an issue. We had many things in common, both from the north, both educated in state schools, both brought up in a grocer’s shop, in my case one my mother started, in hers one her father ran. I admired her. I was one of the millions of voters in the 1979 general election which put her into power as the first woman prime minister. The country was in dreadful shape, fearful and anxious during a winter of discontent in which trade union militants blocked cancer patients getting treatment and garbage piled up in the center of London.

She saved Britain from anarchy and immediately restored a sense of purpose. She could be rough. As Prime Minister, she had a limited tolerance for dissent and an infinite regard for personal loyalty. If you were not with on her everything, she regarded you as disloyal, as unreliable, lacking conviction. I suppose it was the reverse mirror of her indomitable courage. How valiant she was when the IRA terrorists blew up her conference hotel; they tried to murder her and almost succeeded. She was often vindicated. She was impatient with excuses for inertia and woolliness — vividly represented in Meryl Streep’s representation of her cutting off a Cabinet member in mid speech. I disappointed her by giving space in The Times to critics, especially one of them, Edward Heath, whom she’d ousted as Prime Minister. The imperatives of news meant we published news stories she didn’t like: she’d sunk in the polls and recession deepened. Relations became a little chillier. As an editor, I’d never sought to cosy up to political leaders, but I now understand more of what she was up against – the Tory snobs in the counties, the plotters in the party who eventually betrayed her, the “wets” and the “wimps” who would yield on a principle she considered vital.

When she became Prime Minister I was editor of The Times. We backed her a hundred per cent on trade union reforms, on holding the line on pay, especially in the public sector and on advocating more competition in the banking industry, on free trade, on resisting terrorism in Northern Ireland. I told her I thought she moved too slowly against trade union anarchy, but she bided her time and planned well. She won a famous victory against the coal miners, badly led by a firebrand who took money from Gaddafi, and it was thanks to her stalwart support of Rupert Murdoch, whom she admired as a free-booting entrepreneur , that he was able to win the battle of Wapping which ended the guerilla warfare of the print unions.

Margaret Thatcher, whatever the missteps, will take her place in the pantheon of heros – sorry, heroines – who enlarged British freedom.

On the 16-March-1968 a detatchment of US troops under the direct command of Lt. William Calley entered the village of My Lai and slaughtered and raped old women, children, and entire families.

Some 500 civilians were slaughtered.

TheUSAtook no meaningful action against the 18 men charged and the 19th.Lt. Calleyreceived little more than a tokenary punishment.

Do note that not one of the senior officers in the line of command EVER stood trial for this obscene action of cowardice and brutality.

John Kerryas a young man responded to the Senate Enquiry and claimed it was The USA at fault and no one man should be held responsible for a faulty system:

Many years later that same John Kerry as a Senator voted for the corrupt and unlawfull invasion and brutal massacres ofIraqunder the same irresponsible gung ho code.

It is this same John Kerry who succeeded to the job of Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton & now represents the USA on the global stage!

Is this what is meant by power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Please take a moment and think of those wretched civilians slaughtered in My Lai 44 years ago today.

Then take a moment to consider the slaughter in the same cause of forcing people to practice some obscene concept to suit old men in Government – forcing them in Iraq and Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Mali & so many more to adopt a given model of democracy or be shot or tortured if they resist.

. .

Courtesy of Wikipedia entry:

Commanders

Lieutenant Colonel Frank A. Barker – commander of Task Force Barker who ordered the destruction of the village and controlled the artillery preparation and combat assault from his helicopter; he was killed in Vietnam on June 13, 1968, before the investigation had begun.[4][55]

Captain Eugene Kotouc – military intelligence officer who provided some of the information on which the Mỹ Lai combat assault was based; together with Medina and a South Vietnamese police officer, he tortured and executed suspects later that day.[15]

Captain Ernest Medina – company commander of Charlie Company who planned, ordered, and supervised the execution of the operation in Sơn Mỹ village.[56]

1st Platoon, Charlie Company

Sergeant Michael Bernhardt – refused to participate in the killing of civilians. Captain Medina threatened Sergeant Bernhardt to deter him from writing to Bernhardt’s congressman to expose the massacre and, as a result, was allegedly given more dangerous duties such as point duty on patrol.[57] Later he would help expose and detail the massacre in numerous interviews with the press, and he served as a prosecution witness in the trial of Medina, where he was subjected to intense cross examination by defense counsel F. Lee Bailey. Recipient of the New York Society for Ethical Culture‘s 1970 Ethical Humanist Award.[58]

Esequiel Torres – previously had tortured and hanged an old man because Torres found his bandaged leg suspicious. He and Roschevitz (described below) were involved in the shooting of a group of ten women and five children in a hut. Later he was ordered by Calley to shoot a number of people with a M60 machine gun; he fired a burst before refusing to fire again, after which Calley took his weapon and opened fire himself.[citation needed]

Frederick Widmer – Widmer, who has been the subject of pointed blame, is quoted as saying, “The most disturbing thing I saw was one boy—and this was something that, you know, this is what haunts me from the whole, the whole ordeal down there. And there was a boy with his arm shot off, shot up half, half hanging on and he just had this bewildered look in his face and like, ‘What did I do, what’s wrong?’ He was just, you know, it’s, it’s hard to describe, couldn’t comprehend. I, I shot the boy, killed him and it’s—I’d like to think of it more or less as a mercy killing because somebody else would have killed him in the end, but it wasn’t right.”[60]

Sergeant Minh – ARVN interpreter who confronted Captain Medina about the number of civilians that were killed. Medina replied, “Sergeant Minh, don’t ask anything – those were the orders.”[61]

Gary Roschevitz – grabbed an M16 rifle from Varnado Simpson to kill five Vietnamese prisoners.[62]According to various witnesses, he later forced seven women to undress with the intention of raping them. When the women refused, he reportedly shot them.[63]

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by theEUfor their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and theFranco – German– Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

The following quote of the young Winston Spencer Churchill appeared in the first edition of The River War published in 1899 but was removed from subsequent editions. About 15 years ago I had the good fortune to own a first edition, which I should have kept having looked up the prices of current copies for sale today!

The quote appeared around page 250 in the second volume.

Whilst on the subject may I commend the first edition; if you can afford it, as they vary from around $400 to $12,000 on AbeBooks; it is infinitely more interesting to read, having more illustrations and maps, and being in a format far easier to read than the modern versions, which are available on Amazon for around £2.50!

I first reproduced it on the internet in about 1998, as I felt it conveyed some of the ambiguity of views on followers of Islam. Having lived in both the Middle East and Pakistan and spent time in both Malasia and Indonesia I have always found Islam of interest.

May I stress that having no belief in any of the gods mankind have invented, mostly in the Bronze Age or before and seeing religion as such as one of the very most evil concepts mankind has chosen to inflict on himself and others ‘interesting’ is a view I hold of all major religions and belief constructs.

What seems to be overlooked about this comment of the young Winston Churchill’s is that at the time he made it he was involved in The River War and part of the limited British forces who were seeking to control the Islamic forces of The Kalifa having fought in the battles of Atbara & Omdurman in the recovery of the Sudan.

The young Churchill had every reason to respect the Muslims whom he had fought alongside yet was aware of the ferocious reputation and nature of the Dervish.

As a result there were even fears amongst his family that Churchill might, at the time, convert to Islam.

Much like the memorable and erudite speech of Enoch Powell, infamously misquoted and deliberately misinterpreted Winston Churchill’s comments have also been deliberately misquoted and infamously misinterpreted by the likes of the BNP – and the same racist forces that abused Enoch Powell’s speech!

In context and at the time made there is no doubt that neither Winston Churchill nor Enoch Powell made their statements with any racist connotation despite the efforts of subsequent mischief makers!

Consider just how different Winston Chruechill’s statement sounds when the section:

‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die;’

is removed from those who aim to quote Churchill and promote an anti Muslim spin to his comments!

QUOTE:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

It is always worth tracing a quotation to its origins to avoid being duped!

Thomas Pain believed many things and high on the list was that ‘The People’ must be sovereign and that revolutions have to be led by them. This is as true now as it was in the 1700s.

So The Harrogate Agenda needs a ‘People’s Revolution’ in order for its Six Demands, for the better governance of this country, to gain traction. It will only be when our politicians feel the pressure from the grass roots that they will start to endorse, promote and eventually, as the pressure grows, enact them.

Fortunately many of the foundations are in place, for willing people to start the work of steadily spreading our message, including our pamphlet which clearly sets out our Six Demands, and appropriate supporting DVDs and film clips. Importantly one of the clips includes the edited film of Richard North’s Flexcit presentation, which sets out the ‘How and Why’ we should leave the EU. It is to date the only honourable and workable exit and survival plan form the EU yet produced.

The Harrogate Agenda has always recognised that our demands can never be implemented while we are members of the political EU while accepting we should remain, for some time yet, as members of the Single Market. Flexcit, when published, will contain a chapter on The Harrogate Agenda highlighting its real value which is that on leaving the EU and restoring our self government we will then be in a position to improve and reform our governance in line with our six demands.

Understanding that it is the system that is broken, and that no amount of effort to reform the old parties or indeed invent new ones, is going to change a thing, is something that individuals need to work out for themselves. Sadly the evidence is that it does take time for this particular penny to drop and even when it does the next hurdle to overcome is an understanding that political change, of the sort we are advocating, takes time and a different approach from anything thus far seen or experienced.

Shortly after producing our pamphlet, (there are still some from the initial stock available to purchase) I drafted a simple plan to carry our message to the public, which involved a few early key players running regional workshops from which we would recruit ‘Ambassadors’ who would in turn run other workshops, working to a set programme which is duplicable, thus enabling the rolling stone to slowly gather more and more moss.

In truth Ambassadors have been hard to find and this is dictating the rate of our progress. In addition to this there is currently a delay as we await the results of the General Election, to see which way the political wind is blowing in respect of the vital issue of a potential EU referendum. If a referendum is on the cards for 2017 then our workshops will lead on Flexcit backed up by THA as a key advantage to us leaving the political EU. If not, we will reverse the order. The presentations for our workshops have already been successfully trialled so all we need now is to continue the roll out.

If this e-mail prompts anyone to considering taking our message to the grass roots then please get in touch. However, rest assured we are not going away and will continue to make steady progress on the journey we have embarked on. It is just that with a little more help we could go just a little bit faster. If you can lend some assistance we will be immensely grateful.

Niall Warry

Director.

Although The Harrogate Agenda is increasingly an integral part of The FleXcit document it still acts as a stand alone policy CLICK HERE

As FleXcit is very much a work in progress you may find it well worth trying to keep upto date with it as it both grows to cover ever more areas and is refined to ensure no areas of conflict or contradiction the 20th. rewrite was posted a few days ago see CLICK HERE
You may also find it of help to watch CLICK HERE

This is a picture of a partial female skull, of African origin, from Palestine, which is some 55,000 years old and was found in Manot cave in Western Galilea.

This is the earlies example of an african origin skull in the area – in the period between 60 & 50,000 years ago there is evidence, still traceable in modern DNA, that there was some interbreeding between the Neanderthal indigenous peoples and African origin humans.

Could this be the first record of sex tourism or perhaps the first example of the Palestinians being exploited by incoming aliens!

It is believed that originally Europe was populated by incomers from Africa moving into the more temperate areas via both what is now known as the straights of Gibraltar and around the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean.

The Iraq War was done in your name, with your money. Join us in demanding answers.

The Chilcot Inquiry was commissioned in 2009, to establish the facts surrounding Britain’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The publicly funded inquiry interviewed more than 100 people, including the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The inquiry was concluded by Sir John Chilcot in 2011, but still Britain’s political establishment refuses to release it. On Tuesday, 20th January 2015, the BBC stated that the report is now not due to be released until AFTER the UK General Election.

This isn’t good enough. We deserve answers.

We demand the immediate release of the Chilcot Report, so the British public can know the truth about the Iraq War which cost the British people £10bn, 179 British soldiers’ lives, and mired a country in division and terror for the foreseeable future.

The Iraq Body Count website estimates that up to 151,000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the conflict. This was done in your name, with your money.

To Sign CLICK HERE
then send this website to your friends and social media followers.

I am happy to add to that the FACT that the dodgey dossier presented by John Scarlet was not only a total fraud but that Tony Blair was aware it was not just unsound but was not valid intel and had been plagiarised and ‘sexed up’ + the claim that it was British intel. this was a lie and known to be a lie but it supported the dishonest position and ambitions of Tony Blair and his senior Cabinet members.

The irrefutable fact that it was NOT genuine intel and was a deliberate copy of an earlier foreign report ‘sexed up’ by UK to suit Blair’s ambitions was shown and proved by myself with the help of two others – information supplied to Channel 4 News and Kirsty Walk of Newsnight by me personally and researched confirmed and broadcast by them.

I believe on these facts alone that there is a prima faci case to charge Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, senior civil servants and politicians in his cabinet and elsewhere with War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and deliberate lies to Parliament, the electorate our allies an our monarch.

There is also suitable evidence of Mens Rea adequate to justify prosecution if there is any pretence whatsoever that the Chilcot Inquiry is of any relevance – there have been 100s of witnesses and 100ss of functionaries involved in the inquiry and it has dragged on for longer than the war it is investigating – during those 6 years John Chilcot personally has claimed around £1,000,0000 in salary and expenses – imagine the total costs!

The fact that the inquiry has failed to date to produce its report and has given no undertaking to produce same by any given date it looks very much as if it is being deliberately orchestrated to effect a cover-up of the criminal actions of Tony Blair and his Government associates.

I contend that the failure to acqut their duty timeously is a classic example of Justice delayed is justice denied on a disgracefull level and in betrayal of the peoples of Britain, particularly those who were seemingly used as mercenaries to Blair’s ambitions and the many who died.